R v Crocker - [1999] QCA 377

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1999] QCA 377
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CA No 118 of 1999

Brisbane
[R v Crocker]

THE QUEEN
v

GEOFFREY LUKE CROCKER
(Applicant) Appellant
McMurdo P
Pincus JA
Thomas JA

Judgment delivered 10 September 1999.
Joint reasons for judgment of McMurdo P and Thomas JA; separate reasons of Pincus JA concurring as to the orders made.
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE GRANTED. APPEAL ALLOWED. SENTENCES BELOW SET ASIDE AND REPLACED BY CUMULATIVE SENTENCES OF THREE AND A HALF YEARS IMPRISONMENT ON THE DRUG CHARGES (BUT CONCURRENT WITH ONE ANOTHER) AND A SENTENCE OF NINE MONTHS IMPRISONMENT ON THE ACCESSORY CHARGE (CONCURRENT WITH ALL OTHER SENTENCES) AND A DECLARATION THAT THE DATE FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR CONSIDERATION OF PAROLE IS 12 DECEMBER 2001.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - PENALTIES - TRAFFICKING, TRADING, SELLING, SUPPLYING OR DISTRIBUTING - seven counts of supply of methyl-amphetamine - appropriate range of sentence - error by sentencing judge in denying any benefit to accused for plea of guilty - necessity for giving such benefit discussed - error compounded by incorrect factual premise - combined effect of multiple cumulative orders excessive.

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - PLEAS - GENERAL PLEAS - PLEA OF GUILTY - EFFECT.
CRIMINAL LAW - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN GRANTED.
Sentencing judge denying benefit to accused for timely plea of guilty - "double benefit" alleged if discount granted after plea bargain - necessity for giving such benefit discussed - error compounded by incorrect factual premise - combined effect of multiple cumulative orders excessive.
Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 ss13(3), 157
R v Cuddy (1988) 37 A Crim R 226 considered
R v Mallon CA No 480 of 1996, 21 March 1997 applied
R v Neave CA No 186 of 1995, 20 June 1995 considered
R v Radulovic CA No 281 of 1993, 18 October 1993 considered

Counsel:Mr C Hampson QC, with him Mr R Cameron for the applicant/appellant.
Mr D Rutledge for the respondent.

Solicitors:Tavoulas & Co for the applicant/appellant.
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent.

Hearing Date: 8 July 1999.

McMURDO P AND THOMAS JA: The applicant was convicted of seven counts of supplying methyl-amphetamine and one count of being an accessory after the fact to a breaking and entering committed by two other persons. These offences were committed in the latter half of 1997, but the applicant was not dealt with upon them until 15 March 1999. In the interim he had been sentenced on 12 December 1997 to three years imprisonment for a range of prostitution-related offences committed between 1990 and 1995. That sentence included the unusual condition that parole be considered after serving two and a half years of the term. He was serving imprisonment for those offences when he was dealt…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Crocker

Details

AGLC: R v Crocker [1999] QCA 377
Case: [1999] QCA 377
Decision Date: 10/09/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Geoffrey Luke Crocker, was convicted of seven counts of supplying methyl-amphetamine and one count of being an accessory after the fact to a breaking and enter. The applicant supplied a total of 151.563 grams of powder containing 8.126 grams of methyl-amphetamine to a police operative over a two-month period, receiving total payments of $6,050.00 from the undercover policeman. The applicant was also convicted of being an accessory after the fact to a breaking and enter that occurred at the Breakfast Creek Hotel. The applicant drove to the vicinity of the hotel and took the men away from the scene. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment for the drug charges and a further eighteen months imprisonment for the accessory charge. The learned sentencing judge proceeded to make a fresh recommendation that the applicant be considered for parole after serving four years imprisonment, that is to say not before 15 March 2003.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge had erred in not granting any benefit to the applicant for his plea of guilty. The Court held that the sentencing judge was wrong to deny the applicant any benefit for his plea of guilty. The Court also held that the combined effect of multiple cumulative orders in this case was excessive. In view of the errors canvassed in paragraphs 10 to 16 above it is necessary for this Court to set aside the sentences and impose sentences afresh. The Court held that the appropriate total sentence for the 1997 offences and those presently under consideration would be a total of six and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years.

The application for leave to appeal against sentence was granted. The appeal was allowed. The sentences below were set aside and replaced by cumulative sentences of three and a half years imprisonment on the drug charges (but concurrent with one another) and a sentence of nine months imprisonment on the accessory charge (concurrent with all other sentences) and a declaration that the date for eligibility for consideration of parole is 12 December 2001.

Orders